The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 22, Navi Mumbai v. Shri Sudhir V Shetty

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.6159 OF 2010ANDINCOME TAX APPEAL NO.6160 OF 2010ANDINCOME TAX APPEAL NO.6161 OF 2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax – 22, Navi MumbaiVersusShri Sudhir V Shetty ..Appellant. ..Respondent. Ms.S.V. Bharucha with Mr.N.A. Kazi for the appellant.Ms.Vasanti B Patel for the respondent. CORAM : J.P. Devadhar &M.S. Sanklecha, JJ. DATE : 23[rd] January 2013 P.C. : 1.In all these appeals for the assessment years 2000-2001, 2001- 2002 and 2002-2003, following questions of law have been framed by the Revenue for our consideration. “a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was justified in upholding the method of accounting i.e. Project completion method followed by the assessee for the sale of receipt of TDR and compensation amount received by the assessee ? b)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was justified in holding that the profit of the sale of TDR and cash compensation are chargeable to tax in AY 2003-2004 on substantive basis and not in a year under consideration on approval basis ?” 2.It is not disputed that the respondent has been assessed to tax for the assessment year 2003-2004. In view of the above, advocates on both sides state that the issue arising in all these appeals stands covered by the decision of this Court in the matter of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Chembur Trading Corporation in Income Tax Appeal No.3179 of 2009 dated 14[th] September 2011. Consequently, no occasion to sustain the additions in the assessment years 2000-2001, 2001-2002 and 2002-2003 can arise. 3.Consequently, questions of law as proposed are not being entertained. Accordingly, all the three appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs. (M.S. Sanklecha, J.) (J.P. Devadhar, J.)